The hard renewal of Colombia’s leadership began with a bold move: opening talks with Havana and embracing a long‑standing agenda that has guided the country for decades. When the new government took office, it promised that future generations would remember a leftist administration as one rooted in life and lasting peace. To reach that goal, a complete shift in policy was proposed, aiming to solve Turkey‑style gun violence, drug trafficking, and paramilitary violence in all its forms. The portal empty chair described the plan as ambitious but not guaranteed. If it succeeds, a unique peace scenario could emerge; if not, the horizon would be crowded with significant risks.
The president acted decisively, delegating authorities to the Armed Forces and the police. Forty generals and admirals were retired, clearing the way for a new program centered on human security rather than the dominance of arms. The reform rested on the groundwork laid by the Truth Commission, which examined more than fifty years of internal conflict. It documented a heavy toll—hundreds of thousands dead between 1985 and 2018—while the final report underscored that the tools used for decades to confront trouble often intensified the conflict.
gaining momentum
Inspired by these findings, the leadership sought to discredit past actions, notably the posture of Juan Manuel Santos during the 2016 peace agreement with the FARC, and to open space for new negotiations. At the same time, the government aimed to bring rebel groups to the table. The Gulf Clan, a major drug trafficking and paramilitary organization, rose to prominence amid an armed pause that affected hundreds of municipalities. The first real test of the new policy would be in the United States and Cuba, where the FARC, now a political party, had been part of a broader peace framework since six years prior. Petro sent a delegation to the island to restart negotiations, while the National Liberation Army, or ELN, had suspended its activities in 2019. Support from Cuba, Norway, and other nations to pursue peace was emphasized by lawmakers who argued that dialogue should be free of preconditions. They urged ending a mindset that treated peace as a partisan or national issue and called for rebuilding ties with Venezuela as part of the roadmap.
The public stance against inflexible terms for dialogue became the most visible counterpoint to peace efforts. The sense that unyielding preconditions hinder progress was echoed by voices insisting on a more inclusive process that recognizes the complexity of Colombia’s social fabric. A key moment came from Iván Cepeda, a senator who argued that it was time to abandon a posture that made dialogue conditional on rigid terms. He urged a broader national approach to peace that transcends ideological divides. The call to restore diplomatic relations with neighboring countries was seen as a practical step in the peace agenda.
The defense leadership did not rule out potential security challenges, acknowledging the pressures that can accelerate or derail negotiations. The former commander of the FARC, Rodrigo Londoño, known as Timochenko, ultimately agreed to end the conflict with Santos and handed himself to facilitate dialogue and understanding. Officials praised the breakthrough in talks between the ELN delegation and the national government as a landmark moment with the potential for constructive outcomes. Uncertainty remains about how other ex‑FARC factions, totaling roughly thirty groups across two major fronts, will engage in the process.
peace score
Experts caution that real progress will take time and that clouds may appear along the path to total peace. Foreign Minister Alvaro Leyva described the negotiation process with a musical analogy, suggesting it could resemble jazz more than a rigid score. In the early stages, cooperation proceeded smoothly, while translation and interpretation occasionally lagged, revealing the improvisational nature of diplomacy. The process remains open to unforeseen events where creativity and resilience can drive better results.
“The winds of change and peace are blowing.” The hope to reactivate dialogue with the ELN was echoed by public statements and social media posts that underscored the importance of renewed discussions.
Voices within civil society urged a careful balance between accountability and reconciliation. Writers and commentators argued that the nation cannot simply be a spectator to a complex peace process. A society bearing the scars of prolonged conflict faces a difficult task: engaging with history honestly, not just through memes or short videos, but through sustained conversation and evidence-based understanding.